Chennai Court February 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs and ors. Vs. M/S.Asianet Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
COMMON ORDER1. Heard both sides.2.These two writ petitions came to be posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order, dated 19.12.2008. When they were listed before this court on 23.12.2008, this court directed the matters to be listed on 09.01.2009 with a direction to the Registry to give notice to the parties as one of the matter was transferred from the High Court of Kerala on orders of the Supreme Court. Bur for unexplained reasons, the Registry did not circulate the papers. Ultimately, they were listed on 24.3.2010. After hearing arguments, orders were reserved on 7.4.2010. But due to intervening summer vacation and also due to posting at Madurai for three months, orders could not be pronounced. For getting certain clarifications, the matters were again posted before this court on 22.2.2011. After getting those clarifications, the matters were reserved for judgment. 3.The writ petitioner in W.P.No.7931 of 2006 M/s.Asianet Satellite Comm...
Kumar.P Vs. Sarubala R.Thondaiman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the first respondent in the Election Petition (ELP No.4/2009) under Order 14 Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC. Election Petition No.4 of 2009 was presented by the first respondent in this application under Section 81 read with S.100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) and Section 129 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 (for short RP Act). The petition was presented on 29.6.2009. Thereafter, the matter was assigned to this court by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The matter pertains to the challenge made to the election of the present applicant (who is the first respondent in the election petition) as the successful candidate for the Tiruchirappalli Parlimentary Constituency (No.24). 2.Originally orders were reserved on 26.2.2010. Subsequently, it was posted on 11.2.2011 for further clarification. After getting certain points clarified, it was reserved for orders.3.It is an admitted case of both parties that the Election Commission had issue...
Vinod Kumar Agarwal Vs. Needle Industries (India) Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. The above Original Side Appeal arises against the order passed the learned single Judge made in O.A.No.699 of 2010 in C.S.No.687 of 2004.2. The defendant, who was the respondent in O.A.No.699 of 2010 is the appellant and the plaintiff, who was the applicant in O.A.No.699 of 2010 is the respondent herein.3. The respondent/plaintiff filed C.S.NO.687 of 2004 for injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from infringing the registered trade mark and from passing off its goods by using the trade mark PONY.4. The brief case of the respondent/plaintiff is as follows:-(i) According to the respondent/plaintiff, they commenced its manufacturing activity with the very simple gramophone needles and over the years has transformed into prime global source of finest wide variety of hand sewing and hardware needles, knitting needles, crocket hooks, knitting pins, snap fasteners, hooks, eyes, safety pins, plastic headed pins, peal headed pins etc., under its registered trade mark PONY. All of t...
A.Kaleelur Rahman Vs. A.Barkath and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. This First Appeal (Appeal Suit) arises out of the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2007 made in O.S.No. 352 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Chengalpattu.2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:(i) The first defendant's husband, met the plaintiff in June 2003 and offered to sell his wife's property of 1.07 acres in Survey No.471(part) in Mangadu Village for the purpose of meeting the expenses of completing the construction of his "Rahman Kalyana Mandapam" in Balaji Nagar, Pattur. After negotiation, the plaintiff has entered into sale agreement with the first defendant on 08.07.2003 and fixed the sale consideration for Rs.8,50,000/- and he paid an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the first defendant on 08.07.2003 at the time of execution of the said sale agreement and also six months time is granted for execution of sale deed. (ii) The plaintiff paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.08.2003 and paid Rs.50,000/- on 25.08.2003 and the same wer...
Thilagam and ors. Vs. the Assistant Divisinal Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioners herein are residents of Kamarajar Salai, Kallavi, Uthangarai Taluk, Krisnagiri District. They have come forward to challenge the order passed by the first respondent viz., The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Uthangarai dated 23.04.2010 and the consequential notice passed by the second respondent dated 24.04.2010.2. In the writ petitions, on 30.04.2010, after issuing notice to the learned Government Advocate, order of Status quo was passed till 14.06.2010. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 16.07.2010 and the order of status quo was further extended for a period of four weeks.3. On notice from this court, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 24.08.2010. On the matters being mentioned by both parties, the items were listed. With the consent of both sides, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.4. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under the provisions of the Tamil ...
The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. M/S.Navra ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Krishnagiri alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service, to pay Rs.4,00,000/- with interest towards compensation for damages. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the 1st opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by 1st opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Krishnagiri dt.28.12.2007 in CC.No.28/2000. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. Opposite party is the appellant. 2. The Respondent/Complainant has filed a complaint against appellant/opposite party for the claim of his company products destroyed in f...
Kalaivani Vs. the Secretary to the Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
O R D E R1. The daughter of the detenue is the Petitioner and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 14.10.2010, passed by the third respondent under which, the detenue has been branded as a Blackmarketeer and detained under the provisions of Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980).2. As per the grounds of detention dated 14.10.2010, the detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases:-1. Civil Supplies CID, Thiruvallur Unit Crime No.486/2009, for the commission of the offence under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The offence said to have taken place on 16.07.2007 at 5.45 hours.2. Civil Supplies CID, Chennai Unit Crime No.631/2010, for the commission of the offence under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The offence said to have taken place on 25.08.2010 at 12.00 hours.3. Civil Supplies CID...
W.S. Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent proposed in its impugned communication in Lr.No.Dir/F/FC/R/D.No.10 dated 26.11.2010, and the clarification in Lr.No.Dir/F/FC/R/D.No./10 dated 21.12.2010 as also the consequent bills for the months of November, December, 2010 and January, 2011 insofar as they relate to levy of cross subsidy surcharge and quash the same as being arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to continue to permit the petitioner to avail supply of power from the third party sources as also from its own sources without levying cross subsidy surcharge till such time Restriction and Control measures are withdrawn and also direct the second respondent to adjust the sum of Rs.7,53,418/- already collected under the guise of cross subsidy in future bills.2. Sri A.Selvendran learned counsel appears for the respondents electricity board. By consent of both the parti...
N.Ramalingam Vs. J.Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. This Appeal Suit (First Appeal) has been arising out of the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2006 made in O.S.No.44 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Court, Vellore.2.The averments made in the plaint are as follows:(i) The defendant herein has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.04.2002 from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at 0.09 paise per Rs.100/- per month to the plaintiff on demand and executed a promissory note.(ii) Likewise on 22.05.2002, the defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at 32.4% per annum on demand and executed the promissory note.(iii) On 17.06.2002, the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 0.09 paise per Rs.100/- per month on demand and executed the promissory note.(iv) On 11.07.2002, the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at 32.4% per annum on de...
S.R.M.Jayaraman. Vs. Assistant Engineer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent from disconnecting the Electricity Service Connection in Electricity Service Connection No.260-003-1839I in first cross street in Door No... Old No.109/A/3A, Natesan Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai 600 032 pending disposal of the explanation offered by the petitioner dated 15.2.2011.2. Mr.A.Selvendran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 electricity board. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The department has issued a show-cause notice to the third respondent, marking copy to the petitioner, said to be the agreement holder. According to the petitioner, there is dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. The third respondent has requested the department to disconnect all the power supply at the above premises. Based on the request made by the third respondent, the show-cause notice dated 2.2.201...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »